Friday, January 30, 2009

There was more drama today, but it happened outside the presence of the jury and it involved, yep, you guessed it, Spector's young wife, Rachelle.

Apparently, during the lunch hour or during some other court break, Spector's wife was observed by court staff taking pictures of a woman with blond hair in the hallway of the court building. It's not clear if the individual was posing for the photos or not.

Please understand that I did not take many notes on the following event. I was just sitting back and enjoying the fireworks. I may not have the events in the exact order or have all the statements that everyone said.

The afternoon break is called five minutes early, and Judge Fidler states he has some issues to go over outside the presence of the jury. The jury exits and then Public Information Office (PIO) department head, Allan Parachini and three members of his staff enter the well and face the judge. (The PIO works directly for the LA County Superior Court and are civilians. They are not officers or sheriff's.) Also in the well is a large, black man, Mr. Bowman (sp?) who is the attorney representing Mr. Jenkins (sp?) who must be Spector's bodyguard. (I find out later, that this man is "possibly" the bodyguard's uncle.) Judge Fidler first states that the issue was brought before the residing Superior Court head judge, but that judge kicked the matter back to his court to resolve, so that's why we're here.

A PIO staff member states Mrs. Spector was observed taking photos in the court building by the three staff members. She was approached and informed that she couldn't take photos. I believe the staff member demanded the camera be turned over and at first, Mrs. Spector would not relinquish the camera. I'm not clear about the order of events, but the bodyguard became involved and told the court employee that she had no right to take Mrs. Spector's property. At some point the court employee did obtain the camera from Mrs. Spector and was looking through the photos. During some point in the event, Mrs. Spector grabbed the camera back from the staff member and deleted photos.

Judge Fidler asks if there was any physical contact and the staff member states that "she grabbed the camera out of my hands." Fidler states that, "The fact that the camera was grabbed of the the employee's hands, that could be pursued in another court." He also mentions the possibility of an employee fearing for their safety or being threatened or harmed. Fidler addresses Mrs. Spector and talks about a prior event where she took photos inside the courthouse . "Mrs. Spector, we've had a conversation before, did we not?" Mrs. Spector denies taking the prior photos Fidler refers to. Fidler states she was told that taking photos inside the courthouse was illegal. Sitting in the first row and addressing the judge in a tone that I can only describe as disrespectful, Rachelle says something to the effect of, "She saw me delete ... she saw me delete the photos and she continued to look through my husbands private photos. She continued to look through them! She had NO RIGHT to look through my husband's photos!" Judge Fidler talks about the specific rules they have concerning photography inside the courthouse and why they have them. Rachelle says that they were told that they couldn't take pictures inside the courtroom. Fidler states, "I think a point is being missed." Judge Fidler asks Rachelle if she was here when the rules of the court were gone over. She replies, "No." Filder states, "If there is another incident, someone is going to jail."

Then Phil Spector stands up and wants to address the judge. In a very gravely and raspy voice Spector says, "I've been coming to this courthouse for two years. I've been taking pictures for memorabilia. I've been taking pictures in front of the sheriff's, I've been taking pictures in front of officers, I've been taking pictures in front of judges..." Fidler interrupts this saying, "Not this one." Spector continues, "... and nobody's said a word to me. This is the first time anyone has said anything to me."

Allan Parachini addresses the court and says, "If we had seen Mr. Spector taking any photos before we would have done the same thing."

Don't y'all find it interesting that Spector will stand up in open court and defend his penchant for memorabilia photo taking, but he's yet to take the stand to defend himself on murder charges.

At the end of the day Stuart James's testimony is complete. Look for an update on today's testimony over the weekend.Update: I was mistaken! Harriet Ryan has a short entry in the LA Times Blog. It was the bodyguard who was taking the photos! Now it makes sense why the bodyguard had legal representation in front of Judge Fidler. When the court employee confiscated the camera, Rachelle grabbed it out of her hand.

I'm wondering, did Rachelle, knowing she wasn't allowed to take any photos, tell their bodyguard to take the pictures to avoid being accused in the future?

This sounds a little like something MB might be able to shed some light upon ... I'm not sure when she left Harvey's "service" but if he does have photos from early in this process ... not cool.

What a damn ghoul! He probably wants the chair that was in court yesterday back too!

No way the Trial Bride aka RawHell is going to behave herself to the end of this thing. Who the hell is this collection of photos for anyway? Harvey wants 'em for when he goes away? RawHell wants to share them with the kids and grandkids? Oh yeah there are no grandkids, and if there were, they'd have no relationship with their "grandpa." Just ick.

Have to agree with the previous posters - who takes memorabilia photos of a court when on a charge of murder?? Guess he is looking for a book deal & doesn't want to pay the MSM for all their photos from trial 1.

Is it any wonder people talk about what is different in LA trials?

thanks for the reporting Sprocket - I look forward to reading about the cross of this witness

Wow, Sprocket!! You were treated to an unusual show in the courtroom today, huh? LOL, I'm jealous! I would have loved to see those fireworks!

Amazing that Phil actually got up to defend the use of that camera in the courthouse... I have to wonder if he every actually has taken a picture in there or if it's all been Rachelle's doing. Why on earth would anyone take "memorabilia" photos in the courthouse where they are on trial for murder? Phil is even more of a ghoul than I thought!

Shed some light? Are you kidding the man is a narcissistic prick of the worst kind and yes, he wanted the chair back but only if the PROS would have it cleaned first... so instead he had them replaced with replicas of the murder chair... really REALLY spooky. Acting like nothing happened and this is just a passing 'adventure' in his lifetime.

The irony to me, is that he stood up and defended HIMSELF about collecting memories... but not his stupid wife. Oy. And Ick is right.

I will try to put notes up over the weekend about the testimony today. I've been sewing this evening. I do have some sewing orders that I have to get in the mail tomorrow and other clients to see.

Many people have seen Rachelle taking pictures of Phil together with individuals who have come down to the court to support him. I observed Rachelle do this several times, once in the ante chamber area during voir dire. She was taking a photo of Spector with Donte.

There were no sanctions today, just the notice that if this happens again, someone is going to jail.

Anakerie:At first, I just sat back and enjoyed the show. When Rachelle started talking back to the judge, as if she was within her right to grab that camera back because the employee was "looking at her husbands private photos," that's when I grabbed my pad and started to take notes. Spector standing up to speak was priceless.

CaliBride: Love how you adoptedMarc's nic for Rachelle. "Rawhell"sums it up nicely.

Sprocket: I do hope that the employee you mentioned takes it up with another court. Sounds like assault to me.

When PS "stuck up" for his wife,MB had the same thought about it I did. Notice how it was all about PS, and what PS has done, none of it was really about his wife.PS should let her be sent to jail.She's not helping him at all atthis point.

The important part of this is to determine how far Mrs Spector was away from the camera when it went off. There is a report that a court officer saw the flash then moments later heard her say 'I think I photographed somebody'. Of course he could be mistaken, perhaps he had a fountain pen in each ear.She does have a history of pointing a camera at people without permission, but her defence are questioning if this has any relevance to this recent event.Experts are being consulted by her defence, and it is believed that they can prove that actually the person being photographed was indeed photographing themselves - it was a self-inflicted photo shot.

Wonder if the roles ever switch between these two. Whatever, she's his alter-ego.. What kind of a person talks back to a judge like that? Ten to one she's convicted herself of some crime down the road...

Can't wait to see Weinberg's face when his little rat of a victim is convicted.

I was mistaken! Harriet Ryan has a short entry in the LA Times Blog. It was the BODYGUARD who was taking the photos! Now it makes sense why the bodyguard had legal representation in front of the court. When the court employee confiscated the camera, that's when Rachelle grabbed it from her.

MI don't know why the judge did not impound the camera as evidence, at that time all the photos would be subject to the scrutiny of the law. As with any digital media, deleted items are still their, just as available space to be reused. Any time evidence that can be lost if not immediately secured it is subject to collection without a search warrant because of its vulnerability. No tellin what is in that camera, EGOS what they are with those people I doubt they even used the opportunity to destroy the data. At minimal MRS S and bodyguard could be charged with interference of a county employee in the performance of their job. Doesen't have to be a LEO. Just the fact that she stated she deleted photos indicates she took photos, deleting them is tampering with evidence. Fidler has way more Patience that I would or doesn't want to give SP anything for appeal. I would not be surprised if he doesn't deal with her after the trial. Their is a photo opp for you MR & MRS S in matching outfits!

I was mistaken. It was the bodyguard who was taking the pictures and the court employee collected it from him. Now it all makes sense. Rachelle grabbed the camera out of the employee's hand and started deleting the photos. So, by the time they went in front of the Judge, the court employee no longer had possession of the camera.

It explains why the bodyguard had legal representation in front of Judge Fidler.

I'm wondering if Rachelle, knowing photos were not allowed to be taken, told the bodyguard to take the photos so she could avoid future trouble?

Once again, this transpirationdemonstrates that Ms. Rachelle Marie Short will not take any responsibility for her own lunkheaded actions.Instead, Mr. A.J. Jenkins has become the patsy for Ms. Rachelle Marie Short's display of duncery.

It is my hope that Ms. Vania Stuelpwill pursue charges against Ms. Rachelle Marie Short who is a complete dotard.

OMG. I truly wish I was there with ya Sprocket. This has to be the trial of the severely dysfunctional human impersonators.I wonder if either Mr. or Mrs. Spector ever had a normal day in either of their pathetic lives. They make zoo animals look like Albert Einstein.

I apologize if I conveyeda sense of lenity towards Mr. A.J. Jenkins, for that was not my intention at all. I hope to accurately convey this point: it is glaringly obvious to me that Ms. Rachelle Marie Short place anything or anyone in the way of her having to face the consequences of her chuckleheaded and doltish antics. Ms. Rachelle Marie Short is a boorish clod!

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Readers To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process. We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion.

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.